Page 3464 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

That is a disgraceful position that is undemocratic and probably unprecedented in this place—one member standing up and saying another member is not allowed to bring items before this chamber unless it is the way they think it should be done. It is bizarre. It is extraordinary. It is one of the most undemocratic things I have ever seen done in a Westminster parliament.

I am just trying to do my job in this place—to represent constituents, to bring forward the issues that people raise with me. The fuel prices bill was specifically suggested to me by a constituent. I do not know if that person was a Greens voter or not. It was just somebody who wrote to me and said: “I am really frustrated with this practice. New South Wales has got a proposal. Why don’t you do something in the Assembly?” I thought: “Fair enough. Good suggestion. Let’s bring that into this place and have it done.”

Mr Hanson stood up this morning and talked a whole lot about political posturing. Let us talk about political posturing. Political posturing is walking in here and saying, “I cannot work out what Mr Rattenbury is doing today, whether he is a Greens member or whether he is acting as a member of the executive.” I am sorry that Mr Hanson struggles with that. Maybe I can bring in little name tags to make it a bit easier for him. Maybe I can wear different hats on different occasions so that Mr Hanson can get it a bit more clearly in his mind. But it does not actually matter. What matters is whether it is a good idea or not. The fact that Mr Hanson cannot see past that is really galling. And members of the community should be galled by that position, because they are seeing ideas that they are putting forward put down because Mr Hanson has got a hang-up about what capacity I am operating in in this Assembly.

This really goes right back to last November when I was required to make a choice about who to support for government. At that time, I said to Mr Seselja, as the then leader of the Liberal Party—and I said it very publicly, so all the other members of the Liberal Party also know it—that I was very happy to work with all the members of this Assembly to try and move initiatives forward on their merits. That does not mean I agree with everybody all of the time; we will have some fierce debates about these things on the merits, and that is as it should be. But to simply come in here and say “We are not going to deal with some business because of who it comes from” really sets a new low when it comes to behaviour by the Liberal Party in this chamber. Basically Mr Hanson has said, “I will never support anything that you bring forward.” How dare he. I guess that is his choice; that is democracy. But to come in here and say something like that, which is what he has effectively just said, is bizarre.

I will not be lowering myself to that. I will continue to look at the issues that the Liberal Party brings forward on their merits. If I was to take Mr Hanson’s approach, it would completely gut the effectiveness of private members day, whereas yesterday we were actually able to carry some items forward. Not everything the Liberal Party brought forward and not everything the Labor Party brought forward got supported. That is as it should be. These things should be debated on their merits.

We have the situation where, if I was to take the approach Mr Hanson is taking, we may as well not bother turning up on Wednesdays because it would be a complete

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video